Donald Trump’s strange speaking style, as explained by linguists

[homersapien 11,812]

Interesting read.

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/18/12423688/donald-trump-speech-style-explained-by-linguists

When Donald Trump goes off script, transcribing him can be a challenge. As someone covering him during this campaign, I can attest to this. When he’s speaking off the cuff, his rambling remarks can be full of digressions and hard-to-follow tangents. He often jumps to an entirely new thought before finishing his previous one.

Consider this Trump comment on the Iran nuclear deal during a campaign rally in South Carolina on July 21, 2015. Try to follow the train of thought here:

Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, okay, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right — who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

Trump’s simple message — "the Iran deal is bad for the United States" — was interrupted by musings on his uncle’s education, his own education, the power of nuclear energy, prisoners, the intelligence of women, and the negotiating prowess of Iranians, seemingly without rhyme or reason. Slate even called on the public to help diagram it.

Others have noticed this as well. "His speeches are full of non sequiturs," says Kristin Kobes Du Mez, a Calvin College historian who has done a comparative study of Trump and Hillary Clinton’s speaking styles. It’s a completely different style from nearly any other politician you normally see on a big stage.

So I was curious if professional linguists and historians could help us figure out what makes Trump unique. Are there any precedents for this speaking style? Is it coherent? Is there a reason it appeals to certain people?........

......

"Leadership is hard; it needs discipline, concentration, and an ability to ignore what's irrelevant or needless or personal or silly," Pullum says. "There is no sign of it from Trump. This man talks honestly enough that you can see what he's like: He's an undisciplined narcissist who craves power but doesn't have the intellectual capacity to exercise it wisely."

[quietfan 233]

Later in the article:

Quote

Take, for example, Trump’s frequent use of "Many people are saying..." or "Believe me"  ... This tends to sound more trustworthy to listeners than just outright stating the baseless claim, since Trump implies that he has direct experience with what he’s talking about. 

Maybe it's just the scientist in me, but this never sounds more trustworthy to me.  I find it extremely irritating when anyone does this.  Don't ask me to take you at your word.  Show me the evidence, cite your specific sources, or make your argument logically sound enough to stand on its own.  

Going out of one's way to specifically ask me to 'believe you' does anything but strengthen my faith or confidence in you. It triggers a reaction in me that you're setting me up, or trying to bamboozle me.  Honest, trustworthy, and accurate people don't generally begin or end a statement by pleading for my trust.

...but again, maybe my reaction is unique, a result of my natural scientific skepticism.

[Strychnine 1,804]

1 hour ago, quietfan said:

Later in the article:

Maybe it's just the scientist in me, but this never sounds more trustworthy to me.  I find it extremely irritating when anyone does this.  Don't ask me to take you at your word.  Show me the evidence, cite your specific sources, or make your argument logically sound enough to stand on its own.  

Going out of one's way to specifically ask me to 'believe you' does anything but strengthen my faith or confidence in you. It triggers a reaction in me that you're setting me up, or trying to bamboozle me.  Honest, trustworthy, and accurate people don't generally begin or end a statement by pleading for my trust.

...but again, maybe my reaction is unique, a result of my natural scientific skepticism.

 

I hear an intellect befitting reality television, combined with the delivery of a used car salesman when I listen to Trump.  The only question I am frequently left with is:  Is he genuinely this absurd, or is it intentional?

[alexava 6,974]

19 hours ago, quietfan said:

Later in the article:

Maybe it's just the scientist in me, but this never sounds more trustworthy to me.  I find it extremely irritating when anyone does this.  Don't ask me to take you at your word.  Show me the evidence, cite your specific sources, or make your argument logically sound enough to stand on its own.  

Going out of one's way to specifically ask me to 'believe you' does anything but strengthen my faith or confidence in you. It triggers a reaction in me that you're setting me up, or trying to bamboozle me.  Honest, trustworthy, and accurate people don't generally begin or end a statement by pleading for my trust.

...but again, maybe my reaction is unique, a result of my natural scientific skepticism.

I asked this question in another thread and didn't get a response. Have any other presidential candidates ever claimed so many anonymous sources while campaigning? That is one of my main gripes with him. 

[alexava 6,974]

Anonymous or simply unnamed and not verifiable. 

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Have they considered that he's just a jackass?